Pages

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Farewell, AWP

Yesterday, Judge Patti Saris approved the settlement in the long-running First Databank Average Wholesale Price (AWP) litigation, rejecting objections raised by the pharmacy industry. Judge Saris also offered some damning words about AWP as a pricing benchmark for pharmacy reimbursement, adding further urgency to the need for an alternative model.

So what happens now?

The WAC-to-AWP spread will be rolled back to 1.20 from 1.25 (a 4% reduction) for many drugs

, not just the 1400 NDCs in the case.

First Databank will stop publishing Blue Book AWP values within the next two years.

Briefly, First Databank's plan to roll back the AWP-to-WAC markup for so many drugs and discontinue publishing the Blue Book AWP data is not formally required by the settlement. Many pharmacy groups objected to this outcome because a roll-back of this crucial benchmark price would translate into lost dollars for pharmacies that get reimbursed based on AWP.

“[T]hese pharmacies (both chain and independent) and PBMs, reimbursed on the basis of AWP, were unjustly enriched when drug prices were fraudulently inflated during the scheme, yet they have not been asked to disgorge their profits. None of the pharmacies protested the windfalls they received when prices were unilaterally inflated by five percent.” (page 14)

Judge Saris left no doubt about her views on AWP as a pharmacy reimbursement benchmark:

“AWP has been exposed as a faux inflated price unrelated to actual drug prices. Reliance on AWP is a trap for unwary and unsophisticated TPP (third-party payors) purchasers and results in consumers paying unwarranted co-payments.” (page 13)

The judge makes a pretty Naive statement:"Reliance on AWP is a trap for unwary and unsophisticated TPP (third-party payors) purchasers and results in consumers paying unwarranted co-payments"

What "unsophisticated and unwary" TPP is she talking about? Do we know any of these? If so I would like to contract with them. The pharmacies are far less sophisticated and resource and data poor compared to TPPs.

What unwarrent co-pays? As Walgreen's is so fond of advertising "Everyone pays the same co-pay" in the vast majority of the cases-- and the poor and those in skilled nursing facilities do not pay their co-pays in most cases.

Right now every service in pharmacy is funded by the margin spread. So if that spread goes away then the service costs will be unbundled or eliminated. Unless a large dispensing fee is instituted to cover the service and distibution costs.

I know of 4 major suppliers of the AWP; First Data Bank, Medispan, Gold Standard, MicroMedex (Redbook). Each of these vendors might have similar methodologies to calculate AWP, however their AWP's can vary as much as 20%. Many PBM's use an AWP source different than the pharmacy or utilize multiple sources and then use the lowest to calculate ingredient cost. When contracting with the PBM's it is important to define the source of AWP or any other benchmark used.

The more I think about it, I hope AMP is instituted. It obviously needs to be fixed to more accurately represent the true cost of drugs to pharmacies. After this occcurs, though, it might be a blessing in disguise. It will allow for a more level playing field in terms of pharmacy purchasing power. And more importantly, it will allow for a real benchmark for generics. I'm so sick of PBMs setting ridiculously low MACs on generics--like a total reimbursement of $2.50 for a prescription.

And to Barry,

I don't know exactly what the judge meant when referring to unwary third party payers. However, I would say that PBM tactics leave a lot of their clients in the dark. And AWP definitely allows them to more easily implement manipulative practices. For example, it's widely known that PBMs will repackage drugs, giving them unquie NDC numbers and elevated AWPs. Then they boast to their clients that they'll fill prescriptions at their mail order pharmacies for AWP-25%. Want proof of this? Just check the Red Book, and look at the corresponding AWPs.

I agree with you but allow me to clarify. I am assuming the judge meant "PBM" when she is speaking about TPP's. (of course I could be wrong) I believe most pharmacy people think of the PBM and their associated contract pharmacy (often vertically integrated with PBM) when they are thinking of a TPP. It is these TPP/PBMs (i.e. Anthem, Caremark etc) that are repacking and jacking (Jacking up the price-that is) to the poor small/medium business benefit managers who DO NOT understand the economics of how that PBM makes its money. Yes, they see AWP-55% for their drugs and say "what a deal we are getting".

My point is that a PBM/TPP are usually one and the same to a pharmacist and usually to the typical company benefit manager and they are sophisticated deal makers who maximize their gain at the expense of the retail/LTC pharmacy and the real payer- which is the employer or in the case of Part D- the Federal Goverment.

They are not Naive- they are the savvyist of the bunch who have maximized the "AWP" benchmark to their benefit.

I would tend to agree with you that the judge has no idea what she's talking about if she's referring to PBMs. On the other hand, if she meant those who ultimately pay for prescription drugs, then it was a pretty lucid comment. lol

Also, the comment about pharmacies being "unjustly enriched when drug prices were fraudulently inflated" also shows that she doesn't have much of a comprehension of these matters. I don't know about all of you, but our contracts have already been adjusted to reflect these "inflated" AWPs.

DISCLAIMERThe analyses on this website are based on information and data that are in the public domain. Any conclusions, findings, opinions, or recommendations are based on our own experienced and professional judgment and interpretations given the information available. While all information is believed to be reliable at the time of writing, the information provided here is for reference use only and does not constitute the rendering of legal, financial, commercial, or other professional advice by Pembroke Consulting, Inc. or the author. Any reliance upon the information is at your own risk, and Pembroke Consulting, Inc. and the author shall not be responsible for any liability arising from or related to the use or accuracy of the information in any way. Pembroke Consulting, Inc. does not make investment recommendations, on this website or otherwise. Nothing on this website should be interpreted as an opinion by Pembroke Consulting, Inc. or the author on the investment prospects of specific companies.

The comments contained on this site come from members of the public and do not necessarily reflect the views of Pembroke Consulting or the author. Neither Pembroke Consulting nor the author endorse or approve of their content. Pembroke Consulting and the author reserve the right to remove or block comments, but are under no obligation to explain individual moderation decisions.

The public domain use of our materials includes linking to our website. You do not need to obtain special permission to link to the Drug Channels site.

The content of Sponsored Posts does not necessarily reflect the views of Pembroke Consulting, Inc., or any of its employees.